Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How is a "troop section" defined? I am sure you believe that the title on the top of the page defines the "troop section", I can argue that the text on side of the page defines the "troop section".

That's an extremely strained exegesis -- not really supported by the rules.

Tau Empire, p.24, "The army list is divided into five sections. All of the teams, squads, vehicles and characters in an army list are placed in one of the five sections"

And yet I see no mention of what peice of text defines these sections. I'll let you look through the BTB and get back to me.

I know you believed it was the text at the top of the page, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the rule book.  My assumption of the text on side of page is just as valid.

"extremely strained exegesis -- not really supported by the rules" is your opinion right? It's not in the BTB anywhere is it? If it is, I'd love a pg reference.

Lowinor, anyone can be anal.

Once again we are at a stalemate, so what interpetation of the rules should the ethical Tau player use?

 

 

I can't see the individual arguments anymore, or indeed the individual posts. The hypotheses, analysis, refutations: all lost and indeed immaterial in the greater context, the trees to the proverbial forest. All I perceive is a chorus of gurgling, flapping, sphincters harmonising in perfect dissonance to create the longest, wettest dirge penned by man; a tremulous moist fart posing as a discussion in the worst sailor's drag. A requiem for debate and yesterday?s egg salad.

You Make The Call is a precious, sparkling treasure. I love each and every one of you for making it so special.

Posted By Oaka on 07/05/2006 8:16 PM
As far as I know, this thread wins in terms of having the most Dakka accounts created specifically due to this thread.  I mean, look at how many people are mad at the idea of non-dedicated devilfish with post numbers less than ten!

I can understand the anger... does any other army exist where vehicles can be taken as mandatory troops choices other than an armored company, which is banned at GTs?  But... according to the rules, it is legal.  Now, house rules that each gaming group takes are completely different, and I fully expect most groups to not allow this.

But that is the exact point of this forum, to be prepared for a stranger that we all may face at a regional tournament that may think this way.  And, as it stands, that person is right.

- Oaka

Stop saying that it is legal. It is of questionable legality, several irrefuted arguments have been made that contradict the legality of selecting Devilfish as troops. I will repeat, at the very least these points cloud the legality of selecting a Devilfish as a troop choice. In such cases an ethical player is obligated to play by the more restrictive interpretation. Either refute the arguments or accept that it is of questionable legality.

OMG! 

Beware the smokey mermaid and turd-mullet!

Good Lord, what happened to the ends of his fingers!?

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/05/2006 10:07 AM

My argument isn't "it doesn't say I can't" but "it does say I can."

"Common sense dictates it's a transport." But the rules say a transport is a vehicle which infantry can mount in -- there are dedicated and non-dedicated types.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

..... Dude its a Tank, come on. This really is nonsense have you actually read the Tau Codex? Ok try to justify this in your local GW store. The Staff there and any sensible player will tell you your having a laugh! It has the Tank Attribute.... you've just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 07/05/2006 8:50 PM
I can't see the individual arguments anymore, or indeed the individual posts. The hypotheses, analysis, refutations: all lost and indeed immaterial in the greater context, the trees to the proverbial forest. All I perceive is a chorus of gurgling, flapping, sphincters harmonising in perfect dissonance to create the longest, wettest dirge penned by man; a tremulous moist fart posing as a discussion in the worst sailor's drag. A requiem for debate and yesterday?s egg salad.

You Make The Call is a precious, sparkling treasure. I love each and every one of you for making it so special.

LOL

You get prize for the most amusing reply on this Thread! Top man!

Triggerbaby ALWAYS wins that award.  It's his way.

Also, the Devilfish isn't a tank, it's IN a tank:



Get it right.

Stop saying that it is legal. It is of questionable legality, several irrefuted arguments have been made that contradict the legality of selecting Devilfish as troops. I will repeat, at the very least these points cloud the legality of selecting a Devilfish as a troop choice. In such cases an ethical player is obligated to play by the more restrictive interpretation. Either refute the arguments or accept that it is of questionable legality.

Then tell us what relevant arguments have yet to be refuted.

Lowinor, anyone can be anal.

With the quality of your argumentation, it's hard to tell You're one of the ones arguing that the sidebar text means something with relation to the rules.

Once again we are at a stalemate, so what interpetation of the rules should the ethical Tau player use?

I personally wouldn't use it, just as it goes against convention. Doesn't mean that it's not allowable by the rules, just that I wouldn't do it.

Actually you are claiming the text at the top of page means something with relation to the rules.

I am arguing that the text on side of page means something with relation to the rules.

Not much of difference.

I am only asking of you what you asked of me. Prove that the text at the top of the page and not the text on side of the page defines FOC sections.

I understand your point, Tau-Cent, but it is inane.

The book says the army list is divided into five sections.

There are five sections of the army list, each has a header -- HQ, ELITES, TROOPS, FAST ATTACK, HEAVY SUPPORT.

If you don't accept that, then there is no legal way to construct a Tau army.

This whole thing is insane -- too many people just refuse to admit that due to lack of rules clarity (or quality!) an empty Devilfish can be taken as a troops choice. It's very obvious by the most direct reading of the rules, but it is counter to convention, so there is quite the irrational opposition to it, and the strange belief that the rules must conform to convention. (Note that no one is arguing that convention must conform to the rules.)

Here we have the pinnacle (thus far) of that inanity: an argument against the empty Devilfish as troops choice that, by continuation, makes the selection of a Tau army impossible.

At the core of it, the rules are not as well written as they should be. This is emphatically not the fault of the people who are pointing out what the rules actually say.

Convention (at least, that I'm familiar with) dictates that entries with the "Transport:" heading may only be taken as dedicated transports. This is, in reality, how I play 40k. It is not, however, supported by the rules. Some people just cannot seem to make this distinction.

Its the 5 stages of greif. First comes denial then anger (brought opon by a denial of a denial).

When do we get to the bargening? I can make some killer deals.

I agree with Lowinor's points on convention and so on, but why is it impossible that GW would introduce a non-dedicated Devilfish transport for the Tau?

It fits very well with the Air Cav concept they promote in the new codex.

A Devilfish wouldn't suit Heavy Support because it doesn't actually have heavy guns like a Land Raider (despite being a "Tank.")

Where did this convention that vehicles can't be troops come from? Would anyone have a problem if sentinels were used as a troops choice for IG? (AV 10 open topped) Are people confused because it says Transport instead of Tank implying that it can transport things, and then goes on to clarify that it is a skimmer and a tank under it's properties?

I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Posted By happypants on 07/06/2006 10:31 AM
I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Do the heavy support Tanks say Heavy Support in the same place it says Transport?

Before the codex came out the Piranas counted as troops. 0-1 troop choice for 5 piranas...

There are no real arguements against taking the fish as a troop choice in the rules. None of the usual GW methods of differientating the transport from other troops, marking it as a dedicated transport only, exist in the tau codex. They got removed in this version. Just like the terminators previous ability to shoot one target and assult another got removed when the 4th edition came out.

There is nothing in the rules that say you cant take a transport as a choice if you want and since it appears in the troop section, clearly marked as a troop choice...

I agree with Lowinor's points on convention and so on, but why is it impossible that GW would introduce a non-dedicated Devilfish transport for the Tau?

That's drifting from the issue. You don't make a tank a selectable option then label it "transport" or make it a troops choice. The principle of air cavalry relied on transporting troops into a warzone, not turning up with a helicopter because you could (Anything else would likely have been a gunship), but once again, this ain't apocalypse now .

A Devilfish wouldn't suit Heavy Support because it doesn't actually have heavy guns like a Land Raider (despite being a "Tank.")

It doesn't suit troops since it isn't err...troops, it's a vehicle. Armoured vehicles are specialist elements and dedicated towards specific roles in the army - they aren't just wheeled out to make out the numbers.

too many people just refuse to admit that due to lack of rules clarity (or quality!) an empty Devilfish can be taken as a troops choice.

Too many use such "lack of rules clarity" to justify absurd rulings or rules. You are trying to say by implication rather than explaination that a devilfish is a troops choice, despite the fact there is no imperative for that to happen outside of speciality lists where even units like chimeras still need troops on board to be utilised.

Some people just cannot seem to make this distinction.

Some are trying to blur the boundaries set out in almost (since tyranids don't get vehicles) each and every codex. You're trying to say that convention is broken purely on the basis of page design and the absence (instead of presence) of information. You are trying to revise the definition of what a transport is without adequately demonstrating a water-tight argument.

Where did this convention that vehicles can't be troops come from?

I was referring to the "Transport:" notation in the unit entry. There are no actual rules behind it, but the common interpretation is that it implies a dedicated transport.

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 10:40 AM

Posted By happypants on 07/06/2006 10:31 AM
I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Do the heavy support Tanks say Heavy Support in the same place it says Transport?

You might consider reading the actual thread. Yes, on the side of the page besides every unit its FOC designation is listed. In the case of the Skyray and Hammerhead, besides the entry for these two vehicles it says Heavy-Support. Similarly, on the side of page besides the Piranha, it clearly states Fast Attack in a large vertical font.  The only unit that does not list it's FOC next to it is the Devilfish. On the side of page next to the Devilfish, in a large vertical font, it says Transport instead of Troops.

You might consider actually looking at a Tau Codex before contributing to this topic as most of the disagreement concerns formating and layout of the codex.

The vertical text running along the side of each page can be interpeted to represent sections.  There would still only be 5 sections.

 

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 10:40 AM

Posted By happypants on 07/06/2006 10:31 AM
I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Do the heavy support Tanks say Heavy Support in the same place it says Transport?

Yes.

You don't make a tank a selectable option then label it "transport" or make it a troops choice.

Intent argument.

It doesn't suit troops since it isn't err...troops, it's a vehicle. Armoured vehicles are specialist elements and dedicated towards specific roles in the army - they aren't just wheeled out to make out the numbers.

Fluff argument.

You are trying to say by implication rather than explaination that a devilfish is a troops choice,

What part of the explanation do you not understand? There is one passage in the rules relevant to Tau that specifies how to determine what is a valid option for a Troops slot. The Devilfish meets the given criteria.

despite the fact there is no imperative for that to happen outside of speciality lists where even units like chimeras still need troops on board to be utilised.

Irrelevant to a rules argument. This only leads to intent.

Some are trying to blur the boundaries set out in almost (since tyranids don't get vehicles) each and every codex.

The boundaries aren't there. Show me where it says a Troops choice can't be a vehicle by itself.

You're trying to say that convention is broken purely on the basis of page design and the absence (instead of presence) of information.

That's exactly how the rules work. You don't get to make them up on the fly and it be part of the rules. That's what house rules -- convention -- are for.

You are trying to revise the definition of what a transport is without adequately demonstrating a water-tight argument.

No one is trying to redefine Transport. Transport is defined in the BTB. Dedicated Transport is too. You are attempting to conflate the two with no basis in the rules themselves.

No one is trying to redefine Transport. Transport is defined in the BTB. Dedicated Transport is too. You are attempting to conflate the two with no basis in the rules themselves.

No, you are trying to differentiate the two without adequate backup. No unit needs to be listed as a "dedicated transport" because a "transport" becomes one by default. A devilfish (wave serpent, whatever) is a transport option and only exists to fulfil the "transport: ..." line of the fire warrior/pathfinder entries.

And reading it, you'll notice that unlike the fire warrior or kroot entry, it does not say "troops" on the left hand side of the page, it says transport - and if these are to be an accurate indicator of the section it is located it, it is not troops. That suggests that it is a different section. Since if it were troops, would it also not say so there?

There is no "transport" section on the force org chart.

No, you are trying to differentiate the two without adequate backup.

No, that's pretty much exactly what you're doing -- trying to say a Transport is a Dedicated Transport without any indication that it is so.

No unit needs to be listed as a "dedicated transport" because a "transport" becomes one by default.

Have you actually read the text you are discussing?

BTB p.62 "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

Your assertion is, on its face, false. The BTB clearly designates the requirement for something to be a dedicated transport, and it's a property of the vehicle as selected in the army list, not of the vehicle itself.

And reading it, you'll notice that unlike the fire warrior or kroot entry, it does not say "troops" on the left hand side of the page, it says transport - and if these are to be an accurate indicator of the section it is located it

And that's a nice intent argument, which I don't fundamentally disagree with, but it is still an intent argument and irrelevant to the rules themselves.

There is no "transport" section on the force org chart.

And there's no "transport" section in the Tau army list, as the codex itself says it is divided into five sections which match the five divisions of the FOC.

GO Lowinor!

I really like your sound reasoning!  I went and investigated this thread in my Tau codex, and I concur with you, I was wondering how an army of 6 fish and a couple of hammerheads and a host of pirahnas might play out, souds like fun to me, sort of a Tau Armored company.

Good find!

I wonder if the big GW machine ever does the kinds of analysis we see here.  I wonder who their editors are?  (I still want to know what happens when a unit of 5 pirahnas detaches their drones... What if they dont even set up together? ???)

And that's a nice intent argument, which I don't fundamentally disagree with, but it is still an intent argument and irrelevant to the rules themselves.

Nonsense. The devilfish is not labelled as a troops choice. Every other unit in each section has the appropriate label - while the one unit that does not is the devilfish. If the devilfish could be considered both a transport and a troops it would be labelled as such.

Arguing that a unit designated as a transport is a troops choice is just as much about "intent" as much as some of my previous points (which were dealing with side issues in some cases).

And there's no "transport" section in the Tau army list, as the codex itself says it is divided into five sections which match the five divisions of the FOC.

Correct, and thus the devilfish is not selectable by itself because it does not fit into the force org chart.

All troops in the troops section that are troops are listed as troops by way of the word "troops" on the side of the page. The devilfish is not listed as "troops" - so how can it be troops?

If it is a troops choice on a par with fire warriors, why does it appear not to have the same designation of troops as the fire warriors? If it were a troops choice, the "transport:" part of its unit title would suffice to convey that it has a role as a transport for some units as well (Consider that a side "intent" argument if you like). The two units do not have the same properties, so one could be considered to not be a troops choice.

Rork (et. al.)

Arguing page format as rules is certainly an intent argument. Devilfish is clearly an entry in the troops section of the codex.

Arguing that the Fish entries vertical text on the side of its entry that says "transport" limits it to an exclusive roll a a transport is no better than arguing that the symbol above it makes it a troop choice, look at the page again, all the troop choices also have a little triangle symbol.  Furthermore, if it were exclusively a transport why does it have its own entry in the troops section?

If the basis for a Devilfish being exclusviely a dedicated transport comes solely from the little vertical "transport" text then how come the uniform triangle symbol above that for troops entries doesnt indicate it is intended as a troops choice? It's a consistent format? Answer me that!

Nonsense. The devilfish is not labelled as a troops choice.

There is no requirement for an army list entry to be explicitly labelled as a troops choice for it to be a troops choice.

If the devilfish could be considered both a transport and a troops it would be labelled as such.

Unprovable assertion, intent argument.

All troops in the troops section that are troops are listed as troops by way of the word "troops" on the side of the page.

This is an irrelevant and unprovable assertion. It's perfectly fine as a basis for convention -- and as I say, that's how I'd play it -- but it is not supported by the rules. By the rules, being in the troops section is the only requirement for something to be a valid troops choice.

You have to take a lot of liberty with the word "section" to say that the Devilfish is not in the Troops section. But, apparently, twisting the English language is easier than admitting that the rules don't line up with convention. To me, any use of "section" that generates a non-continuous piece of text (without explanation in the rules) is weasel wording. Using the sidebar as definitive of section is ad hoc at best and dishonest at worst.

Arguing that a unit designated as a transport is a troops choice is just as much about "intent" as much as some of my previous points

Nope, because there is no requirement that the two are mutually exclusive. For all you know, the sidebar could just be to make it more obvious that the army list entry has the transport ability. Hence the problem with intent arguments, it's all speculative.

If it is a troops choice on a par with fire warriors, why does it appear not to have the same designation of troops as the fire warriors?

You seem to be totally missing the point. This is irrelevant because the sidebar designation is not actionable in the rules, only section placement.

The two units do not have the same properties, so one could be considered to not be a troops choice.

And that's a perfectly fine convention, but it's not in the RAW.